HULK SMASH!!!
I guess the strategy they are using hear is to flood the media with new leaks, in hopes we'll forget about the real leaks...who outed Valerie Plame and who outed the outers?
pardon me, the real strategy they are using here, not hear....
Amazing how these guys never fail to point fingers at everyone else when they screw up.
But don't forget that the GOP-run Congress also has a vested interest in diverting the blame for this colossal blunder. They gave Bush the green light and the blank check.
But do they really expect us to believe that the CIA talked Congress or the White House into going to war? That they never would have voted for it ghad it not been for the allegedly over-scary intelligence reports?
Looks to me like a full scale war between the White House and the CIA is brewing. I wonder who is going to win.
Oh and I'm sure that the CIA will just quietly sit by and accept the blame. Uh huh.
How dumb are these people? They have already pissed the intelligence community off in a big way and now they are throwing trying to put the fire out with gasoline. My god, the incompetence is staggering.
"A senior administration official, who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity"
when, oh when, oh when, will a reporter have the spine to say "If you want your message in our newspaper you will have to put your name on it."
FIE ON ANONYMOUS SOURCES!!!!!!!
Damn it - my competence is questionable, too - I should have removed that "throwing" when I edited my comment. It's a large enough word, one would think I would see it.
The Roberts aide denied that encouraged Roberts to criticize the CIA.
(sic)???
If you share my belief that panelists should refuse to appear on Capitol Gang until Novak reveals his source, you can use these addresses to do so:
capitol gang
mark sheilds
http://www.creators.com/
opinion_...columnsname=msh
Margarette Carlson
Time Magazine
1050 Connecticutt Ave NW #850
Wash DC 20036-5303
fax 202 293-1085
Mr. Al Hunt
Wall Street Journal
1025 Connectiuctt Ave NW, #800
Wash DC 20036
fax 202 862- 9200
Kate O’Beirne
National Review
1126 National Press Building
Wash DC 20045
fax 202 543-9226
to ask CNN to drop Novak write to
Mr. Richard Parsons
President
Time Warner
75 Rockefeller Plaza
NY NY 10019
My feeling is that Bush/Rove needs a a scapegoat well before the election season (by the end of the year, maybe). Nobody is volunteering, surprise! -- so everyone's jockeying around. Look at the way Cheney and Rumsfeld have been going off message and undercutting one another. The various White House / CIA leaks are all part of this. I think Tenet was ready to have his head chopped off when some of his people started counter-attacking.
This is the kind of situation Novak thrives in, BTW. They don't call him the Prince of Darkness for nothing. What's his angle? (My understanding is that as a paleo he was NOT enthusiastic about the Iraq war).
My other perception is that Rove has told Bush et al (whoever Rove is still talking to) that the administration needs some kind of war / security crisis in the months before the election.
Ahem. The CIA is a part of the Executive Branch, and its misconduct IS Adminstration misconduct.
As I told the police, I didn't shoot the guy; my right index finger did.
this article in the Australian Financial Review is the best assesment of the Busheviki I have ever seen:
The main game
Sep 26
Peter Hartcher
http://afr.com/articles/2003/09/
...4083117132.html
Even after almost three years and two wars, the degree of popular preoccupation with George Bush's mental abilities is extra-ordinary. The way the Bush Administration wields its formidable power is, of course, vastly more important than the wits of the individual who happens to be its front man. Yet the stupidity thing is so pervasive in popular discussion, particularly outside the US, that we really need to deal with it to even begin to approach the real significance of the W presidency.
Yes, it's true that he really did say "I know the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully". And it's true that he articulated this particular approach to tax policy: "It's your money. You paid for it." And his priority on education has been clear-cut: "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" And on America's dealings with the rest of the world: "I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy." (He has been as good as his word.) Bush has, in a sense, asked to be treated as an idiot. Asked in 1999, while serving as the governor of Texas, to name his most serious weakness, he said it was that he didn't like to read long books – especially books about policy. He has also remarked that he hates briefings and meetings. As these activities account for the great bulk of the work of governing, one wonders exactly which part of the job he actually enjoys.
Rockefeller is right. The Bushies want to focus attention on the CIA and the bogus issue of "faulty intelligence" rather than see anybody start to examine Doug Feith's little operation over at DoD.
Anyway, I'm really a bit confused by this whole strategy. It seems to be that they're trying to claim that the CIA talked them into going to war while simultaneously saying that they were absolutely correct in their decision to go to war.
"Officer, I couldn't possibly have molested that girl. I've never even met that girl. And besides, she assured me she was eighteen!"
Sigh!
As a child of the '60's who grew up with the Agency slipping Castro poison cigars to make his beard fall out and news of other wacky and sinister Cold War deeds, I never in my life thought I'd be rooting for the CIA. Just as alarming, Pat Buchanan said something I agreed with several months ago.
What the hell is happ'nin' here?
Nevertheless, CIA officials, stung by the initial comments, blasted Roberts and defended their work and CIA Director George Tenet.
"It is hard to understand how the committee could come to any conclusions at this point," CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said. "We are perplexed to hear the committee has reached some conclusions, when only Wednesday the (Director of Central Intelligence) requested a meeting with chairman Roberts, during which Director Tenet strongly requested an opportunity for intelligence community senior leadership to appear before the full committee to help them understand this important and complex subject."
I can't wait for the "intelligence community senior leadership to appear before the full committee."
It'll probably be a closed session, but I feel confident we'll get a lot of interesting details.
Meanwhile, Tom Kean and Slade Gorton (among others) have run out of patience . . .
"As these activities account for the great bulk of the work of governing, one wonders exactly which part of the job he actually enjoys."
Easy. The plane rides, the boat rides, and dress-up time.
Selah.
Clue boobies!
(¤)(¤)
whoops! you know who really posted those boobies, right?
Who lives by the sword etc...
I totally hate the CIA to whom we owe the Shah of Iran (arguably the overthrow of Mosssadegh was the first step leading to our current debacle in the Middle East) and Pinochet.
I always thought that Langley should be razed and its ground salted.
Robespierre sending Danton to the guillotine does not make me weep for Danton.
At best, I hope the CIA exacts a huge toll on the neo-fascists before they too are consigned to the proverbial dustbins of history. If only.
Perhaps Sen. Rockefeller should start his critique by mentioning the signatures on the 1998 PNAC letter to then President Clinton about the need to invade Iraq were not those of the CIA but of the current administration.
Has anybody seen the "Grovah the Traitor" story breaking in their local or national news?
Is it too soon to hope?
The only good thing top come out of the Bush administration and the GOP takeover of the USA is that it has given me keen insight into how my ex's mind works.
It used to be that I could not possibly keep up with her scheming, lies and duplicity. But now, it's no sweat. I just ask, "Waht would BushCo do?" This simple device has enabled me to get the upper hand because no longer am I taken by suprise by her audacious and breathtaking willingness to say and do anything to "win" and take what she wants, everyone else be damned. I am now "winning" because she has become utterly predictable.
grover..Grover..GROVER!!!!!
Connect the dots, America...be outraged...This is the ultimate betrayal...prosecute all traitors! Can you tell the difference between a leak and a balloon? Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where are the 9 million lost jobs?
Kobe who? That's right, I don't give a damn if Kobe did it. Where are the motherf----ing WMD? Why have so many people died? Demand answers to the questions that really matter.
Oh anon, I heart you so!
As it has become increasingly clear that there are warring factions within the White House itself, I have continued to ask myself why W hasn't fired anyone. Sure, he's an incompetent goof, but certainly he would see the wisdom (via Rove) of getting rid of the troublemakers and building a cohesive team.
Then I remind myself that they're ALL troublemakers, there's not an honorable one in the bunch, and that he has surrounded himself with a den of thieves.
Which is why no one is getting fired or hung out to dry on Plame or any other matter. They've all got the goods on each other, and as I said, they are not honorable. They can't be counted upon to take the fall quietly.
BushCo. has declared war on the CIA. Plame was just the first shot.
Interesting, so now they say the CIA provided the faulty intelligence about the weapons and threat Hussein really was. Meanwhile, David Kaye's report per Miserable Failure and his administration's comments stated that Kaye's finding to date clearly supported and proved the fact and intelligence estimates of the threat Hussein posed. So how is the CIA to blame for erroneous information that Kaye's findings (per Bushco) support? Rove has gotta get his talking points ironed out a little better between all his players.
This ain't really your life ain't really your life ain't really
Nothin' but a movie...
Jennifer - "They can't be counted on to take the fall quietly."
No indeed. I really expect them to tear each other to pieces.
Just e-mailed Pat Roberts (I live in Olathe, KS - He is my senator - Sorry) and let him know he needs to stop covering for Cheney and Scooter.
HOLY JEEBUS,
CNN is showing footage of U.S. soldiers, in full combat gear with weapons at the ready, confronting demonstrators over concertina wire at Ft Stewart, Ga..
The demonstrators look like they are also active-duty military and relatives. The story is about the sub-standard medical care.
The CNN flack is not even mentioning that it looks exactly like footage from Iraq....
WTF are these people thinking?
This is freaking lunacy.
The strategy is no more odd than the idea that "our intelligence was so good we are sure WMD's are there but our intelligence was so bad we underestimated how little infrastructure was left in Iraq".
In other words - "we make it up as we go along".
Did anybody else see the the footage?
The CIA is a necessary evil when they're spying. If we could keep them out of the government-overthrowing business we'd all be a lot happier...
chris c,
I missed it.... Wish I hadn't.
As it has become increasingly clear that there are warring factions within the White House itself, I have continued to ask myself why W hasn't fired anyone. Sure, he's an incompetent goof, but certainly he would see the wisdom (via Rove) of getting rid of the troublemakers and building a cohesive team.
Then I remind myself that they're ALL troublemakers, there's not an honorable one in the bunch, and that he has surrounded himself with a den of thieves.
The answer to your question is right there. Any one of them that gets canned/indicted could conceivably spill the beans on the whole store.
Chunk,
It was reminiscent of Vietnam era footage.
The protestors were really pissed and the soldiers were front and center with weapons in the ready position. One shot, showed a soldier pushing a protestor over the front of a car as she was being arrested.
I truly cannot believe that this wasn't the focal point of the report.
chris c - wow. I guess this is what happens when you insist on poking a hornet's nest with a stick repeatedly. At this rate, a mob with torches may actually storm the WH and take this adminstration down before any of us get a chance to vote them out.
The Dallas Morning News was very instructive this morning. Every single letter to the editor read like someone from these boards had written it. Every single letter was about a Bush screw-up or lie. The DMN is a conservative paper with a conservative audience. The wind has definitely shifted.
I'm looking forward to a police state.
Folks, I'm sorry to be jumping the thread so much, but the footage was really disturbing. The protestors were shouting and shaking their fists, and the soldiers were clearly nervous, and I shit you not, it looked like someone could be shot. Very intense.
As it has become increasingly clear that there are warring factions within the White House itself, I have continued to ask myself why W hasn't fired anyone.
Isn't it obvious that he isn't in charge? I chuckled at this news a few weeks back:
Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he 'didn't want to see any stories' quoting unnamed administration officials in the media
anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a
senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.
The more I think about it, the less I chuckle. The "senior administration official" was basically saying that Bush has no say in his Administration. "Senior administration officials" control what news gets to the President and whoever is on top of the administration's pecking order at any given time is the person calling the shots.
No wonder there is so much infighting. The Rummy's Cheney's Rice's and Powell's are all fighting to be the defacto president. Is it any wonder that we there are no coherent policies coming from the White House? Should we be surprised that the only thing they do well is manage news and destroy outsiders who cause them problems?
Relax, Chris. I seriously doubt that those soldiers have ammunition, except for the MPs and DoD security police. On the other hand, any kind of demonstration by retirees, family members and reservists is a very poor indicator of support for this war.
Yankeedoodle,
Relax?
My father was a colonel, my 2 uncles are generals, and I can tell the difference between MP's and soldiers with weapons at the ready.
Watch the freaking footage, if it's shown again, then tell me how you feel.
The Kean statement is a killer...reminds me of Watergate and the Judiciary committee's demand for the tapes...and an explanation for the missing 18 minutes. Wow.
Anyone see the article about Cheney in Asia Times? It quoted Joe Biden:
"Like with a horse, Powell is always able to lead Bush to the water. But just as he is about to put his head down, Cheney up in the saddle says, 'Un-uh', and yanks up the reins before Bush can drink the water. That's my image of how it goes," Biden said.
That is also the image which is gaining currency in power circles in Washington. When it comes to foreign policy, Cheney is increasingly seen as holding the reins.
While the mainstream media continue to refer to Bush as the captain of his own foreign policy ship, hints that Cheney - a Republican right-winger surrounded by neo-conservatives, many with close ties to Israel's Likud Party - is the dominant figure in Washington's diplomacy have become too plentiful to ignore.
There's a nice picture of little Dickie riding on his rocking horse, aka georgie bush.
Josh Marshall has some good comments regarding Sen. Pat Roberts over at Talking Points.
Talkingpointsmemo.com
Whoops. I went a bit apostrophe happy there.
Ok, either I'm pretty stupid or CNN doesn't have a clue how to report the news.
The footage of demonstrators I posted about earlier was just shown again, but it is reported as Ft Stewart training exercises for Iraq duty . I guess for dealing with unruly crowds.
CNN did not report the story this way earlier.
I'll just slink away now.
Taking a page from their compadres in the White House, Haliburton is now asking its employees to write letters to the editor defending its no-bid contract, according to this AP story. Interestingly enough, the source of the internal memo which was the basis of the story was apparently MoveOn's misleader.org -- demonstrating once again the potential power of the liberal internet. (Here is the direct link to the Misleader.org story.)
Sigh. That should be "Halliburton," of course.
To see how BushCo can get away with this fingerpointing look at how Sy Hersh exposes the "stovepiping" practice, but when questioned whether the administation is lying he's inclined to give Cheney and Bush the benefit of the doubt. So the WH puts pressure on the spooks to give them intel they like. Then when it turns out to be false they can't be blamed because they didn't get the good intel. Hersh blames Tenet more than Cheney even though the CIA was trying to do its job and may have even set up the Niger documents to embarass the war peddlers. But why is it so hard to indict the people who compromised the intel vetting process in the first place? I don't get it.
The Hersh Q&A is on the new yorker site.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/co.../?
031027fa_fact
The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.
“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”
The Administration eventually got its way, a former C.I.A. official said. “The analysts at the C.I.A. were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenet”—the C.I.A. director—“for not protecting them. I’ve never seen a government like this.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/co.../?
031027fa_fact
A few months after George Bush took office, Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, was assigned to be the daily intelligence liaison to John Bolton, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, who is a prominent conservative. Thielmann understood that his posting had been mandated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who thought that every important State Department bureau should be assigned a daily intelligence officer. “Bolton was the guy with whom I had to do business,” Thielmann said. “We were going to provide him with all the information he was entitled to see. That’s what being a professional intelligence officer is all about.”
But, Thielmann told me, “Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear.” Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Bolton’s early-morning staff meetings. “I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The Under-Secretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore.’” When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, “The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family.”
Eventually, Thielmann said, Bolton demanded that he and his staff have direct electronic access to sensitive intelligence, such as foreign-agent reports and electronic intercepts. In previous Administrations, such data had been made available to under-secretaries only after it was analyzed, usually in the specially secured offices of INR. The whole point of the intelligence system in place, according to Thielmann, was “to prevent raw intelligence from getting to people who would be misled.” Bolton, however, wanted his aides to receive and assign intelligence analyses and assessments using the raw data. In essence, the under-secretary would be running his own intelligence operation, without any guidance or support. “He surrounded himself with a hand-chosen group of loyalists, and found a way to get C.I.A. information directly,” Thielmann said.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/co.../?
031027fa_fact
By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed.
Well I don't know if anyone else has brought this out but let me state the obvious: No weapons of mass destruction have been found despite repeated assurances that they were there and even that they knew exactly where they were.
Therefore be it resolved that the Government of the United States of America owes the people or Iraq(not Hussien of course) and the rest of the world including it's own people an apology for this fiasco.
Soup,
Actually Hersh's column is pretty damning to the Bush administration. Cheney had months to verify the Niger story so it can't just be the CIA's problem except that George Tenet couldn't sand-up to Cheney and say "you can't use that info it's a fraud) but then neither so far can the Democratic Party stand up to this administration-Daschle has caved to Cheney dozens of times.
What I want to know is how bad does all this have to get before some conservative do what is right? Can't Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan) be charged with aidding and abetting the Bush adminstrations in it's attempted to hide evidence of the felony to commit fraud. Bush and Cheney lied about the facts and they did so with intend to do so. They cherry pick intelligence and cooked the intelligence and Sen. Pat Roberts knows this full well as do we all.
Therefore be it resolved that the Government of the United States of America owes the people or Iraq(not Hussien of course) and the rest of the world including it's own people an apology for this fiasco.
An apology for this act of fraud after so many lives have been lost and so many are still being killed????
Bush and Cheney and lots of others in this administration including Rice, Rumsfeld and perhaps even George Tenet should do time in the federal pen. John Dean did time (1 year) for Watergate (Watergate was theift and didn't kill anyone), what will Tenet get? More the year for dis-services to the American people, something he knew to be incorrect but allowed to happen anyway.
chris c writes:
The footage of demonstrators I posted about earlier was just shown again, but it is reported as Ft Stewart training exercises for Iraq duty . I guess for dealing with unruly crowds.
Meanwhile, this story on CNN's web site talks about a visit to Fort Stewart by the acting Army Sectretary. He's now promising to improve the living conditions there. There's no mention in that article of either a training exercise or a demonstration. A search for "Fort Stewart" on CNN's web site turns up nothing else that appears significant.
I think it is worse than damning. It describes a process that was designed to fail. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. It doesn't matter if you suported the war or not. These guys created a system that was deeply, tragically, fundamentally stupid.
Remember the term "Mayberry Machevelli"? Well there is a whole lot of Mayberry and very little Machevelli. The Prince wouldn't have given Chalabi the time of day let alone become enraged about not funneling millions of dollars to him. Its the stupidity stupid! Honest to Christ, this transcends ideology.
Speaking of Chalabi, he's up to his old embezzling ways. Only this time it's our money. Ooops, last time it was our money, too, but only 6 million. This time it's 4 billion according to Christian Aid out of England.
So chris c was correct in his analysis of the first CNN report...
Wow.
An apology is not enough.
The entire pack of war criminals need to be deported to The Netherlands to stand trial, then upon conviction, shipped to Texas and strapped to a gurney.
What I want to know is how bad does all this have to get before some conservative do what is right?
Cheryl,
That is an unanswered question, since conservatives rarely do what is right.
Didn't it take the Congress to get to the bottom of Watergate? I don't remember the Senate covering itself with glory in the beginning of the investegation. Mary McGrory used to call it Patsy Senate for a good reason.
We're going to have to turn up the heat a lot before anything happens.
It's worth looking at the Google News reports on the Fort Stewart Story. It's not just rep after rep of the same story, there's a lot of local coverage.
Didn't see a demo mentioned, though.
Fort Stewart
http://tinyurl.com/sdby
Keith Thompson,
This is an unfolding story.
Please read Billmon post at the Whiskey Bar weblog
Chris didn't get it wrong in fact please listen to lastest from the this very well spoken Senator over on "Yahoo news-Democrats: Allies Need to Share Burden (more of this PLEASE Dem's please, please, please make this the message tomorrow on the news. PLEASE let this message ring out to all Americans. THEY AREN"T GETTING THIS MESSAGE.
Yes Hersh's piece was devastating, but why does he not call a spade a spade? This is what he says to the question were they lying:
One of the great questions is “Were they lying? Did they know the truth?” And the answer, I think, to a large degree, is that, whatever they may have suspected, they didn’t know the truth, because the truth was simply impossible for them to see. The system had been set up so that they saw only what they wanted. And, you know, these people, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in particular, came to the office openly suspicious of the intelligence community and the bureaucracy. They thought they were too soft on Iraq, not tough enough with Saddam, not able to make the decisive choices. So what you have is a bunch of people who weren’t lying; they simply had fixed the system so it couldn’t give them information they didn’t want to hear. One of the intelligence guys I talked to used a wonderful analogy. He said, “It’s as if you all had gone into a planetarium and the software for the sky show had gone bad and you were seeing the wrong sky, and you walked outside, and you looked up and you said, ‘Hey, what’s going on. This isn’t right.’” And that’s what they had done: they had gone into the planetarium, they set themselves up with the wrong software, and then they were surprised to find that the rest of the world didn’t conform—the war began, and there were no W.M.D.s.
Please take note that Billmon also adds this:
You might recall there was a huge flap (on the Internet, anyway) at the initial deployment because our troops were being sent off without a base-line medical exam--an exam mandated by law.
Bush's real support for the troops...
What a Christian Bush is...really!
I read on some stupid rightwing weblog that Bush kissed a hosipitalized wound military man with one of his hand missing and his face half missing too because he was caught in an explosion and then Bush pray to God over the guy and said he love him. The Repugs thought that was just great. And VERY next day Bush cut veterans benefits, AGAIN.
Please watch Bill Moyers this week - a real Christian conservative puts the Bush adminstration to shame.
Bush is using Gods name to push what isn't Christian at all and this why the framemakers didn't what religon used in politics - Because of assholes like Bush.
The system had been set up so that they saw only what they wanted Hersh said they stovepiped the info- they set the system up themselfs.
I don't know why Hersh is calling it a spade when he wrote it as a spade.
We are not suppose to call Bush a criminal before Bush is convicted as one - journalist need to stop playing footies with Bush and nail the SOB.
They were wrong. They were so wrong.
Not because they wanted to believe Saddam had WMD. But because a third-world country was not going to hurt us even with their so-called WMD.
What have they done.
These guys better be booted... and soon.
I read on some stupid rightwing weblog that Bush kissed a hosipitalized wound military man with one of his hand missing... >
Cheryl, read this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/b...ush/
injured.asp
“Were they lying? Did they know the truth?”
er Sorry,,, but...
I don't recall Hersh say that - what he said was they had time to confirm the Niger story but they refused to listen to the facts, that it was a indeed a fraud-THEY were told that-I'm sure-we need a witness now-What is Tenet going to say? Cheney wanted to know if the Niger story was real but he didn't like the truth so he lied and Bush lied too.
Bush Senior has asked his son on several occassions to get rid of Cheney, and Rumsfeld and Rice...to bad Junior doesn't listen...even his mother said so in a recent interview.
Well Geez some conservative pundits lie I guess pie - Big shock there huh, and this must be why we should questions these rumors of Bush praying face down in the oval office.
Karl Rove productions???
Just more BS I guess.
In support of Pie...
Iraq's behavior during the first war upon them demonstrated that the Ba'athist regime was deterable by the Us and Israel's threats of pay-back in kind. That is why Iraq limited itself to conventional weapons.
Deterence works!
What happened to deterence and diplomacy anyways?
Cheryl, who the f*ck believes that Bush would lie face down and pray...IN THE OVAL OFFICE?
And if he did, who would want it to be known?
He preys. 
They were wrong. They were so wrong.
Not because they wanted to believe Saddam had WMD. But because a third-world country was not going to hurt us even with their so-called WMD.
What have they done.
These guys better be booted... and soon.
pie
If I understand the timeline correctly, after the first Gulf war there was no evidence of WMD. Then Kay pushed his agenda, and started the fear ball rolling.
But, Clinton ( fear mongering as all politicians no matter what the ilk ) maintained the WMD threat rhetoric. This works the same way that every administration maintains the war on Drugs threat.
So, the Bushies just took it to the extreme. The extreme being to forward the PNAC, Pro-Israel agenda.
Unfortunately, it failed. Miserably.
Either way, there hasn't been an HONEST administration ( on dealing with Iraq) since the Gulf war.
So if the Clinton's hadn't played the fear card ( aiding their arms sales donors) and had offered a REALISTIC assessment( Hussein Kamal interview for example) the Iraq debacle would never have gotten this far.
Clearly the Bushies use the Clinton admin quotes to bolster their claims.
This is another example of political shortsightedness on the Democrats parts.
Hindsight is twenty/twenty, but in this case as well as the war on drugs it was the same old dog and pony show of misleading information.
R soles, the Clinton administration didn't use Saddam as a crutch to advance its agenda.
There was so much crap being hurled against Clinton that I don't remember anything about Saddam's WMDs. There's probabley a good reason for that: Saddam wasn't a threat to us.
OBL. Now, that's a different story. Someone dropped the ball there. I think we're going to find out who that was.
It won't be Clinton.
probably. getting late.
No fear-mongering about WMDs in the Clinton administration that I remember at all. Too much other stuff going on.
Pat Roberts is a whore...and not a very good whore at that.
and how is going to war with the CIA gonna help the Bushivics?
"Anyway, I'm really a bit confused by this whole strategy. It seems to be that they're trying to claim that the CIA talked them into going to war while simultaneously saying that they were absolutely correct in their decision to go to war.
-Atrios"
So I'm not the only one to have this thought occur to me. I feel awfully bright now
Ooops, I guess Condo-Lie-Za is caught once again, from tomorrow devestating WaPo article:
M"...Most notably, investigators have judged the aluminum tubes to be "innocuous," according to Australian Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Meekin, who commands the Joint Captured Enemy Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to Kay. That finding is pivotal, because the Bush administration built its case on the proposition that Iraq aimed to use those tubes as centrifuge rotors to enrich uranium for the core of a nuclear warhead...."
Ooops.
Think anyone will question her on it?
Wolfowitz had better get out of Iraq soon. First, the insurgents shot down a hlicopter in Tikrit while Wolfowitz was visiting and now they've tried to bomb his hotel in Baghdad.
To paraphrase the late John Candy, "I bet neo-cons blow-up real good."
Damn, they missed
Republicans think prewar intel is like pre-recall accusation of Arnold's groping. After they got what they wanted who cares what the truth is/was. As Arnold says, that's old news.
According to the Pentagon, the bombs at Wolfy's hotel were welcoming fireworks. It's the CIA that thinks they were bombs.
Well, emal, we have a special place for people with logic like yours.
Guantanamo!
Fascinating last question by Rockefeller at the Democratic Hearings broadcast last night on C-Span. First he quoted the W-Post article quoting Roberts -- how many interviews with Intelligence Community types had been conducted, how many hours, etc., etc (volune counts I guess) -- Rockefeller noted how different were the impressions of Roberts that no pressure had been put on CIA or others -- and the panel's opposite report, that the Desk level analyists had been under extreme pressure from Cheney and staff. So Rockefeller asked the obvious question, could the panel supply names of people on the inside who they trusted who felt the pressure.
Two of the three agreed to provide names -- the third refused because his contacts were all undercover. So Cannestero and Larry Johnson will be delivering the names of the Cheney pressured CIA analyists. It was very polite all around, but it was a bowling ball thrown at Roberts and Cheney's obstruction plans. You have to talk to the right analyists -- not just a volume of analyists.
There was so much crap being hurled against Clinton that I don't remember anything about Saddam's WMDs. There's probabley a good reason for that: Saddam wasn't a threat to us.
pie
http://forums.thetriangle.org/ge...neral/
3382.html
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
December 16, 1998
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
http://www.stelling.nl/konfront/...e1999/
5002.html
Blair and Clinton have the gall to depict Saddam as a threat, when in reality the United Nations security council has spent the past seven years forcing Iraq back to the stone age. Much of Iraq's industry was destroyed in the Gulf War of 1991, when 250 000 bombs were dropped and, according to the respected British Medical Journal, up to 180 000 Iraqis were killed; there were only about 150 fatalities among the Allied forces. Since then, a UN blockade on Iraqi oil sales - its principal export - has further crippled the country's economy, leaving it desperately short of money to buy food and medicine. There is no evidence to support Britain and America's claim that Iraq is a threat which must be crushed. So what is behind this latest attack? It clearly has nothing to do with the Middle East, where earlier this week Clinton claimed he wanted to unite Arabs and Israelis as part of the stalling 'peace process'; how could dropping bombs in the region be part of this same policy? Rather the air strikes are driven by internal US problems. The American government is seeking to assert its authority abroad to help alleviate its problems at home. The transparent and self-serving nature of the attack is illustrated by America's isolation in taking this action. The UN secretary-general Kofi Annan registered his opposition to the air strikes by saying that his thoughts are with the men and women of Iraq. Other members of the UN security council are either openly hostile, like China and Russia, or quietly hostile, like France. Such differing views among the leaders of the 'international community' expose the artificiality of the US campaign.
There was so much crap being hurled against Clinton that I don't remember anything about Saddam's WMDs. There's probabley a good reason for that: Saddam wasn't a threat to us.
pie
http://forums.thetriangle.org/ge...neral/
3382.html
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
December 16, 1998
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Co...01/
607rkunu.asp
THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Guess you are wrong pie.
Explain why clinton didn't do the morally correct thing by signing the landmine ban?
Clearly, Clinton was just as much a fear monger as Bush. Obviously since the Gulf war saddam was used as a threat to the american people. A false threat.
Plainly Clinton laid the groundwork that Bush capitalized on.
If they had chosen an honest and responsible course of action, we would never be in this mess.
Just like Enron Democrats are vulnerable on this issue.
So it's Clinton's fault that Bush went to war. Now, I know george isn't running the country, but I didn't know Clinton still was. That'll be news to the populace, especially the repubs.
Blame the Clenis™ Fear-mongering, based on a speech here and there? Laughable. Compare that to the constant drumbeat leading up to ACTUAL war.
You'd better read Seymour Hersh's article in the
New Yorker. It's a real eye-opener. Oh, baby.
So it's Clinton's fault that Bush went to war. Now, I know george isn't running the country, but I didn't know Clinton still was. That'll be news to the populace, especially the repubs.
Blame the Clenis™ Fear-mongering, based on a speech here and there? Laughable. Compare that to the constant drumbeat leading up to ACTUAL war.
You'd better read Seymour Hersh's article in the
pie
Can you be anymore stupid? Cut the Tucker Carlson ridiculous extreme position, and READ the quotes.
It is Clintons fault for laying the GROUNDWORK. For using fear tactics to manipulate the people, and politicians.
It is clear from the posts, mine and anonymous that is what happened.
If Clinton had been honest and claim saddam was no threat. That his WMD's were non-existent, and had been nuetralized as a threat the Bush people could have NEVER used Saddam as a threat.
Why do you choose to ignore Clintons failure to take the moral highground and sign the land mine ban?
Surely you aren't a sychophantic parrot, claiming that clinton was all good and his actions only motivated by his love of the people?
My god, you have the shortsightedness of a Republican.
And his speach occurred to explain a BOMBING.
Please pie, buy a clue before you embarass yourself anymore.
R soles - Your conclusions are based on a faulty premise, to wit: that Bushco wouldn't have concocted a threat out of whole cloth to serve their purposes. We know otherwise.
At most, they've used the Clenis'™ words for cover.."even Bill Clinton said"...not for justification. In fact, to anyone who's been paying attention, that's clearly what was done, since they have made it their policy to be anti-everything that the Clenis™ was for - until it served their purpose to quote him.
Bottom line: it doesn't matter what the Clenis™ said; Bill Clinton didn't order the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Jennifer
R soles - Your conclusions are based on a faulty premise, to wit: that Bushco wouldn't have concocted a threat out of whole cloth to serve their purposes. We know otherwise.
Wrong. It would have severly restricted their ability to make such claims. Democrats would not have been vulnerable, and would have had the ability to counter Bush claims with Clinton facts.
Add to that the UN findings, and show me how Bush could have pulled it off? Unless, Saddam popped a nuke.
At most, they've used the Clenis'™ words for cover.."even Bill Clinton said"...not for justification. In fact, to anyone who's been paying attention, that's clearly what was done, since they have made it their policy to be anti-everything that the Clenis™ was for - until it served their purpose to quote him.
As I said above, Democrats were vulnerable for just that reason. The same thing happened with Enron.
Bottom line: it doesn't matter what the Clenis™ said; Bill Clinton didn't order the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Wrong again. Clinton set the stage. It does matter because one can see the trend. It is obvious.
By your position, it didn't matter what JFK did with Viet Nam because Johnson escalated it. Or that Reagan created Ossama.
Finally, why did you avoid the landmine ban issue? According to Mother Jones Clinton catered to the defence industry. They donated millions to Democrat coffers.
By bombing Iraq unnecessarily all those years, who benefitted except the defence industry.
Taking the narrow view allows these type of policies to be used.
Do you think that if rangles draft bill goes through that a Republican would not capitalize on it?
Or Engels Syria bill will not allow Neocons to attack Syria?
We don't have the luxury to defend Democrats when they make stupid moves. war vote for example, and how everyone who voted for it have to cover their ass now.
Unless politicians stop serving their special interests at the cost of the people nothing will ever change.
There is no time to play catch up anymore. We see what a ruthless and self interested administartion will do.
We must work at preemption of stupid policies.
Thus defusing future problems.
Sorry, R soles, don't buy into your theories. Clinton set the stage. Blah, blah, blah.
" It is Clintons fault for laying the GROUNDWORK."
No, no, no. Each administration speaks for itself. I don't care what Clinton, did, said about Iraq. We didn't go to war there during his administration.
I'm not in the least embarrassed, sweetie.
We must work at preemption of stupid policies.
Thus defusing future problems.
Got a crystal ball?
We must work at preemption of stupid policies.
Thus defusing future problems.
Got a crystal ball?
pie
No a brain.
Draft a good thing for americans? Don't think so.
Syria bill gonna aid the Bushies with their invasion plan? Looks that way.
Any fool can see what is glaringly bad policy.
Why can't you?
Sorry, R soles, don't buy into your theories. Clinton set the stage. Blah, blah, blah.
" It is Clintons fault for laying the GROUNDWORK."
No, no, no. Each administration speaks for itself. I don't care what Clinton, did, said about Iraq. We didn't go to war there during his administration.
pie
That says it all "I don't care what Clinton, did, said about Iraq."
Proves you have shit for brains.
You should care what ANY administration has to say on every issue. You vote issues right? Or do you vote pretty faces?
People like you should just sit and watch the pretty lights. Your ignorance is glaring.
I really don't understand the fixation BushCo seems to have developed with the CIA lately. I mean, honestly, what kind of strategy is it to encourage people to call the CIA "sloppy" in public, when you've already:
1.Used intelligence they told you was bad, after you'd already excised it from one speech.
2. Put it in the SOTU address.
3. Put the blame for your using it back on the CIA.
4. Forced the CIA director to issue an apology for not telling you twice that the intelligence was bad.
5. Outed a covert CIA operative, potentially exposing her entire network of subordinates, personal informants, and informants to her subordinates to death.
6. Outed a CIA operative investigating WMD, thus jeapordizing those investigations...
The only possible strategy I can detect in play here is a pretty ham-fistedly coquettish invitation for some serious, bareback sodomy the likes of which beggars even the formidable sexual imagination of Rick Santorum, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I really wouldn't have imagined the White House to be itching quite so badly for a topping by Tenet, but, then again, who'd want to?
You should care what ANY administration has to say on every issue. You vote issues right? Or do you vote pretty faces?
Yes. You got me. I vote pretty faces.
But I've seen the light, thanks to you. I'll be better from now on.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
